MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112356144 · doi:10.15273/jue.v12i1.11314

Nationalism in the Age of Brexit: The Attitudes and Identities of Young Voters

2022· article· en· W3112356144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emma Wolkenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Undergraduate Ethnography · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrexitReferendumNationalismFeelingIdentity (music)PoliticsVotingPower (physics)SociologyGender studiesNational identityPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyLawEuropean unionAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2016 Brexit referendum revealed a division between younger voters, a majority of whom voted Remain, and older voters, a majority of whom voted Leave. From virtual interviews with six British young adults, this article analyzes the effects of the Brexit referendum on their perceptions of belonging and national identity. My theoretical framework draws upon Benedict Anderson’s definition of the nation and Michael Skey’s and Craig Calhoun’s critique that feelings of equality among members are unrealistic due to the power and identity hierarchies that exist within a nation. Interviews reveal a strong binary conception of identities created through politics and media that divide voters into distinct, distanced groups. Young voters use harsh, derogatory language to describe oppositional groups, such as Conservatives, Leave voters, and older voters, to separate themselves and reinforce their identities. However, because these oppositional groups hold the most power, continuous separation reinforces feelings of powerlessness in politics and reveals hierarchies of identities. These hierarchies can have long-lasting implications for the United Kingdom as these younger voters will eventually comprise the voting majority and strive to see their values and beliefs represented in positions of power.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Undergraduate EthnographySame topicYouth Education and Societal DynamicsFrench-language works237,207